> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:03:46 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #40
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 40
>
> Today's Topics:
> Re: Best cheap telephoto? [ gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: End of K-mount? [ Peter Alling <webster26@mindspring. ]
> Re: OT: Software fads (was Re: FAJ l [ Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: The Purpose of Cheap Lenses ... [ Peter Alling <webster26@mindspring. ]
> Re: End of K-mount? [ Peter Alling <webster26@mindspring. ]
> Re: End of K-mount? [ Peter Alling <webster26@mindspring. ]
> Best cheap telephoto? [ "Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@india ]
> Vs: Cheapest k-mount body [ "Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.m.korhonen@ ]
> Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 [ Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> RE: Re: LX + Mecablitz [ "Jose R. Rodriguez" <jrrodriguez@co ]
> Re: Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses [ "Feroze Kistan" <angelart@telkomsa. ]
> Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 [ Peter Alling <webster26@mindspring. ]
> Re: Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses [ Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Vs: Coating on Filters? [ "Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.m.korhonen@ ]
> Vs: Vs: Cheapest k-mount body [ "Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.m.korhonen@ ]
> RE: End of K-mount? [ "Rob Brigham" <Robert.Brigham@badge ]
> Re: OT:Ilford Chemical Confusion [ "Butch Black" <butchblack@worldnet. ]
> RE: Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses [ "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: End of K-mount? [ "Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@india ]
> Re: Re: OT:Ilford Chemical Confusion [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:05:29 -0500 (EST)
> From: gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Best cheap telephoto?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> find that all the truly long telephotos either cost $5000, are mirror
>> lenses, or are turkeys?
>
> You know, I've been giving serious thought to one of those 500mm mirror
> lenses for my 645 lately.. I don't really NEED or want it, though, other
> than I can't seem to actually direct mo ney towards useful, wise
> ventures... I figure when they experience a nice price drop* I'll grab
> one.. There's no way I can ever afford a lens that long any other way.
>
> * - I bought my Zenitar 16mm about a eighteen months ago for $230, now
> they seem to fetch closer to $100
>
> --
> http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
> http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:01:07 -0500
> From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: End of K-mount?
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> True P?l and I expect Pentax to do just that, maintain backward
> compatibility. I'm just
> pointing out that they are not required to do so just because they can,
> Nikon isn't.
>
> At 06:17 PM 2/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Because the mount can be backward compatible doesn't mean it will
>> be. That
>>> takes
>>> an act of will. There is nothing to prevent KAF3 mounts to be on "J"
>>> lenses only. This
>>> is a marketing decision not a technology decision.
>>
>>
>> Huh? Nothing preventing them to releadse them with Canon mount ether! The
>> whole thing is about people claiming Pentax will abandon compatibility
>> because they have released two lenses with limited compatibility. It is
>> absurd. Theres no basis for any such conclusion. Pentax have released
>> bodies with the same limitation years back and assming that every body
>> thereafter would be equally crippled is equally nonsensical.
>>
>> P?l
>
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:56:13 +0200
> From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OT: Software fads (was Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most
> Unknown Pentax Lens)
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Hi!
>
> BW> you might enjoy this, then:
> BW> http://www.softwarereality.com/rumours/story021.jsp
>
> BW> Oddly enough, there really is something called Reactive Programming...
>
> Take it or leave it but right now I am reading the "Hitchhiker's Guide
> to the Galaxy" - the original, not translated (into Russian). And mind
> you, but this text you mentioned has a certain taste of the Guide.
>
> There could be a sense in continuing Guide's legacy and writing some
> programming pieces... Something with Guide's style and Dilbert's
> illustrations...
>
> To put some weight on other side of the coin :), my Master's Thesis
> was related to Reactive Systems...
>
> ---
> Boris Liberman
> www.geocities.com/dunno57
> www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:53:03 -0500
> From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Purpose of Cheap Lenses ...
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> I don't think you can get a Canon lens in EOS that has a f-stop
> ring, I could be wrong but I've never seen one. (I stopped caring
> about Canon when they screwed their user base).
>
> At 02:08 PM 2/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>> ... is to make cheaper starter kits.
>> There's nothing for the user of the nicer lenses to fear.
>> Didn't Canon & Nikon did this ages ago on some lenses?
>> Pentax, as always it seems, is last.
>>
>> Collin
>
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:58:52 -0500
> From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: End of K-mount?
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> If you lose the F-Stop ring then you lose a very non-trivial part of the
> functionality when you put a new lens on an old body.
>
> At 12:14 PM 2/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>
>>> So wait till PMA. I also have a dilemma what to do. But hope to stay in
>>> Pentax. I collected some K lenses, one M and A50/1.4 and it would be ice
>>> to use then on dslr like on MZS or PZ1p etc. even with some overexposure
>>> and limitations. There can be a situation you sell your Pentax gear and
>>> suddenly Pentax release USM and IS lenses. And for the money difference
>>> of selling old and buying new system you could afford to have new dslr +
>>> some new Pentax lenses with any backwards compability. I also wait. I
>>> even thought about selling Pentax gear and bying new Contax Aria+some
>>> primes (used) to shoot slides like I do now. But it is not probably the
>>> best idea. The system is without future although Zeiss primes must be
>>> great.
>>
>> Here's a thought on compatiblity. When Pentax switched to the bayonet
>> mount, screw mount lens to K mount body and screw mount body to K mount
>> lens converters became available. When they got autofocus, that 1.7x
>> dealie that gives you autofocus on a manual focus lens became available.
>>
>> Whatever new mount they release, I would assume it's the same basic mount
>> they have now but with some additional feedthroughs; the older lenses
>> would work on the new mount, the new lenses would work on the old mounts
>> with some loss of functionality. Why should it be otherwise? The basic K
>> mount works fine, and there's still room on the ring for extra stuff.
>>
>> But I will predict that when they do put out a line of IS lenses and
>> cameras that use them, there will also be a TC-like dealie that will give
>> IS to non-IS lenses. I also predict I won't be proven wrong for a few
>> years, and then nobody here would remember, so it's like a freebie for me.
>
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:06:23 -0500
> From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: End of K-mount?
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Not really but P?l's point about the lens mount being entirely backward
> compatible
> doesn't mean it can't be built without a f-stop ring which would mean
> Shutter preferred
> exposure automation on older bodies compatible with it and wide only on all
> others. Nikon
> is slowly doing just that and when was the last time you saw a Canon lens
> with an aperture
> ring, (FD lenses and earlier don't count). What we are counting on is
> Pentax's good will
> not a mechanical requirement.
>
> At 12:52 PM 2/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>> Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Because the mount can be backward compatible doesn't mean it will be. That
>>> takes an act of will. There is nothing to prevent KAF3 mounts to be on "J"
>>> lenses only.
>>
>> So you think they'll make new high-tech lenses that are incompatible
>> with their top-of-the-line SLR (the MZ-S)?
>>
>> --
>> Mark Roberts
>> Photography and writing
>> www.robertstech.com
>
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:00:52 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Best cheap telephoto?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. I
> found a Phoenix 650-1300mm f/8-16 zoom for $260, which seemed like a
> wonderful new toy, but someone that had used the lens complained of poor
> contrast and a bluish tint, and declared it a turkey.
>
> With some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I was hoping to
> at least find decent but small aperture fixed lenses pretty cheap. Will I
> find that all the truly long telephotos either cost $5000, are mirror
> lenses, or are turkeys?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:18:05 +0100
> From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Vs: Cheapest k-mount body
> Message-ID: <001001c2d2dc$489d4660$227053d4@default>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Is this the one that is actually Zenit?
> All the best!
> Raimo
> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
> -----Alkuper?inen viesti-----
> L?hett?j?: Mat Maessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> P?iv?: 12. helmikuuta 2003 17:03
> Aihe: Re: Cheapest k-mount body
>
>
>> Kalimar K-90.
>> cheap cheap cheap. But it does do pseudo-mirror-lockup with the
>> self-timer.
>>
>> -Mat
>>
>> Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>>>
>>> What is it?
>>> (By cheapest I mean poorest construction/materials.)
>>> The Vivitar V4000 comes to mind.
>>> Is there anything worse that that?
>>>
>>> Collin
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:51:37 -0800
> From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Hah! found something right away!
>
> Look at this rather comprehensive site on lens fungii:
>
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fungus.html
>
> keith
>
> * * * *
>
> Keith Whaley wrote:
>>
>> Peter Alling wrote:
>>>
>>> To fungi everything is nutritious, I'm not kidding.
>>
>> I understand the thrust of your comment, but please see below...
>>
>>> At 09:07 AM 2/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>>> Mike Johnston said:
>>>>
>>>>> Just don't store it near your other lenses. Fungus is "contagious."
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's truly "full" of mold (fungus), then the coatings and the elements
>>>>> have probably been damaged (etched). This can't be fixed. Well, it can be,
>>>>> but not cost-effectively. If it has slight traces of fungus, you can pay
>>>>> to
>>>>> have it cleaned and hope for the best. (Cleaning is no guarantee that
>>>>> fungus won't return.)
>>
>>>> Fungus needs something to eat. Are lens coatings nutritious?
>>
>> May I humbly suggest, all fungii care about is something to grow ON?
>> So long as they can find a growth base, and are able to spread out,
>> they are then free to take nutrients from the air, lens cement or
>> whatever else they eat....
>>
>> I'm going to have to look into this, see what it is they DO eat!
>> Might be an interesting project!
>>
>> keith whaley
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:19:14 -0600
> From: "Jose R. Rodriguez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Re: LX + Mecablitz
> Message-ID: <000001c2d2d4$03cf1d40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Peter,
>
> The following is from my Metz SCA 373 Module's Manual that I use with my
> Metz 45 CT-4 & LX:
>
> Ready light: Flash readiness information is given by an LED or flash symbol.
> A flash can only be fired if flash readiness is signaled. Otherwise the
> camera operates in the mode selected on the camera body. If flash readiness
> is achieved, the camera?s automatic system switches to the flash sync speed.
> If no further flash is desired, just switch the unit off.
>
> Auto check: If, in the TTL or auto flash mode, the ready light is
> continuously lit after a flash was fired, correct exposure is achieved and
> flash readiness is provided. However, if the ready light blinks after a
> flash was fired, the exposure was correct but flash readiness is not
> established until the ready light glows continuously. Underexposure occurs
> if the ready light goes out after a flash was fired.
>
> Check and see if this is how your flash is operating. I hope this helps.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jose R. Rodriguez
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:45 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: LX + Mecablitz
>
>
> Jose,
> Indeed the Metz has its own exposure ckeck function (a red light). However,
> why does the LX "automatic exposure check" function sometimes at all?
> ?:-|
> Peter
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> You may want to check your Metz Flash manual instead of the LX manual. I
>> believe that the "automatic exposure check" function is different between
>> Pentax TTL Flashes w/LX and Metz TTL Flashes w/LX.
>>
>> I will check my manual later and make certain.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jose R. Rodriguez
>>
>>>
>>> From: Peter Smekal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: 2003/02/12 Wed AM 07:38:14 CST
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Re: LX + Mecablitz
>>>
>>> Hi Bob,
>>>
>>> Well, it doesn't matter if I fire the flash att f1.4 or f22. The
> behaviour
>>> is the same. Besides that, according to the LX manual it should flicker
>>> anyhow.
>>>
>>> ???
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>> Peter,
>>>>
>>>> Finder check goes on with the flash on bounce or with the 85/2 but not
> with
>>>> the 50/1.4 ? ! ! Have you watched the recycle time?
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't the finder check 'flicker' work only while the flash is
> recycling.
>>>> Once the flash capacitors have reached full charge, the light goes on
>>>> solidly. So if you fire the flash with the 50mm at f1.4, the TTL
>>> doesn't use
>>>> much flash energy. The recycle time is really short. And, you don't
>>> get to
>>>> see the finder check 'flicker'.
>>>>
>>>> Try the 50mm at f16.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Bob S.
>>>>
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>>
>>>>> After some advice from the list I managed to fix a SCA-372 hot-shoe
> for a
>>>>> Metz Mecablitz 32 CT 3. With that shoe attached the flash is said to
>>> work
>>>>> together with the LX in TTL-mode like any Pentax TTL flash (such as
> the
>>>>> AF-200T, AF-280T or AF-400T). And so it seems. The red "X" led
>>> glowing when
>>>>> the flash reaches full charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only one thing is odd: the automatic exposure check in the
>>> viewfinder works
>>>>> very erratic. It flickers for correct exposure when the reflector is
>>> tilted
>>>>> uppwards, not when its in 'normal position'. In the same
>>> position/distance
>>>>> to a possible motive that is. Why would that be? It shouldn't have
>>> anything
>>>>> to do with the hot-shoe. What do you think, can the flash still be
>>>> reliable?
>>>> snip
>>>>> Another clue: it has these problems with the M 50/1.4 and not with
> the M
>>>>> 85/2 lens - strange!
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Smekal
>>> Uppsala, Sweden
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> Peter Smekal
> Uppsala, Sweden
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 22:20:37 +0200
> From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ
> lenses)
> Message-ID: <008c01c2d078$b5e6f420$f440ef9b@angel>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Hi Boris,
>
> Its not that I don't care what every function the camera has or does, its
> just that I take photos the same way I've always done. I had my Z70 for
> about 6 months before I realised that the thing had programme modes (I just
> put accidently on A one day). Never bothered to use it full auto after that
> anyway. I use my MZS the same way I use my K1000. I know that theres for eg
> a multiexposure setting but I just never use it. There are some cameras that
> would work fine in green mode and probally give me the same results as when
> I set it manualy, but for me it is a tool, used to take photos, my final
> outcome is somehow more important than worrying about every function I have
> on the camera. And there are some models that require you to walk around
> with the manual just to switch the thing on. I've only been taking photos
> for about 8 years and I feel I am better off working on my composition than
> worrying about fps.
>
> Feroze
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Anyway, it is probably a certain amount of shame that people don't
>> really care about what really their camera does in order to let them
>> enjoy the outcome...
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:15:53 -0500
> From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Keith I have a friend who's a Mycologist. This is his attitude
> from what I saw of some of his experiments I believe him.
>
> At 11:45 AM 2/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>> Peter Alling wrote:
>>>
>>> To fungi everything is nutritious, I'm not kidding.
>>
>> I understand the thrust of your comment, but please see below...
>>
>>> At 09:07 AM 2/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>>> Mike Johnston said:
>>>>
>>>>> Just don't store it near your other lenses. Fungus is "contagious."
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's truly "full" of mold (fungus), then the coatings and the
>> elements
>>>>> have probably been damaged (etched). This can't be fixed. Well, it
>> can be,
>>>>> but not cost-effectively. If it has slight traces of fungus, you
>> can pay to
>>>>> have it cleaned and hope for the best. (Cleaning is no guarantee that
>>>>> fungus won't return.)
>>
>>>> Fungus needs something to eat. Are lens coatings nutritious?
>>
>> May I humbly suggest, all fungii care about is something to grow ON?
>> So long as they can find a growth base, and are able to spread out,
>> they are then free to take nutrients from the air, lens cement or
>> whatever else they eat....
>>
>> I'm going to have to look into this, see what it is they DO eat!
>> Might be an interesting project!
>>
>> keith whaley
>
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:25:30 +0100
> From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was:
> FAJlenses)
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Boz wrote:
>> Pentax should come out and say what their strategy for the future is!
>
> Well, in 2000 Pentax told us their plans with the MZ-D, and then they
> wisely changed plans. So maybe it really is better not to unveil product
> news until the products can really be bought. I believe that Pentax will
> be faithful to the k-mount as long as they will produce SLRs. The
> FA-Junk lenses cannot point to the general direction as MZ3/MZ5N and
> MZ-S are not even able to manually control the aperture on them..... I
> think Pentax is very aware that compatibility is their very strength.
>
> Boz wrote:
>> there are nice offerings from other manufacturers
> there are nice offerings from Pentax, too, like the Limited lenses.
> Maybe you should tell Pentax clearly what you want.
>
> I would like
> - compatibility!!!!
> - 122/f2.2 and 22/f2.2 mm Limited lenses
> - an IS 1.4x converter
> - LX with AF
> - full frame DSLR
> - money to buy all this....
> USM I really do not care about.
>
> Arnold
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:25:07 +0100
> From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Vs: Coating on Filters?
> Message-ID: <00a501c2d2de$4b7dbf20$227053d4@default>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> No, it?s the other way round, skylight blocks blue light - like the light
> coming from the blue sky .
> All the best!
> Raimo
> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
> -----Alkuper?inen viesti-----
> L?hett?j?: Matt Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> P?iv?: 12. helmikuuta 2003 18:10
> Aihe: Re: Coating on Filters?
>
>
> <snip>
>> some "skylight" filters stop UV and some
>> pink/red rays.
> <snip>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:22:22 +0100
> From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Vs: Vs: Cheapest k-mount body
> Message-ID: <00a401c2d2de$4ae6af40$227053d4@default>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> I have no personal experience of it but it feels bad and heavy in the hand but
> the results are sometimes surprisingly good. It used to be quite popular in
> England.
> All the best!
> Raimo
> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
> -----Alkuper?inen viesti-----
> L?hett?j?: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> P?iv?: 12. helmikuuta 2003 18:04
> Aihe: Re: Vs: Cheapest k-mount body
>
>
>> I don't know the Zenit seems to be made with good materials, it's just the
>> result that's bad.
>>
>> At 06:01 PM 2/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>>> Zenit
>>> All the best!
>>> Raimo
>>> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>>>
>>> -----Alkuper?inen viesti-----
>>> L?hett?j?: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> P?iv?: 12. helmikuuta 2003 16:19
>>> Aihe: Re: Cheapest k-mount body
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What is it?
>>>>> (By cheapest I mean poorest construction/materials.)
>>>>> The Vivitar V4000 comes to mind.
>>>>> Is there anything worse that that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Collin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
>> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:22:24 -0000
> From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: End of K-mount?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> With all due respect, Sigma has HSM and now OS. Maybe you cant do a
> carbon copy of Canon, but no reason why you cant do your own. If Sigma
> can do it then damn sure Pentax can!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: 12 February 2003 18:42
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: End of K-mount?
>>
>>
>>> If Pentax takes away the aperture ring at the same time when
>>> introducing the new technologies like ultrasonic motor and image
>>> stabilizing, that's the end of my investment on Pentax
>> equipment. I
>>> feel betrayed for my long patience on Pentax.
>>
>>
>> Henry,
>> With all due respect, I think you may be overreacting. The
>> introduction of two lenses does not mean that all future
>> lenses from Pentax will lack aperture control.
>>
>> But where have you heard about Pentax introducing USM or IS
>> lenses? From what I've heard, both those technologies are
>> closely controlled by Canon. The only reason Nikon has them
>> is that MITI forced Canon to share. Olympus, for instance,
>> had a big hit with the digital UZI, but could not make a
>> successor because Canon would not let it license the IS
>> technology again. I don?t have any inside track or any great
>> knowledge of this, but personally I doubt very much we'll see
>> any Pentax lenses with either of these technologies at any
>> time in the foreseeable future.
>>
>> --Mike
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:20:54 -0500
> From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OT:Ilford Chemical Confusion
> Message-ID: <001501c2d2d4$3efc0a40$99a05a0c@Boris>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> My understanding is that Ilford recommends a non hardening fix is because it
> is easier to archivally wash the film that way. I think they list a
> procedure where with just 3-4 dumps of water the film is archivally washed,
> I can't remember if it was with tap water however. Otherwise with a
> hardening fix I think they recommend 1/2 hour under running water. I think
> Aaron would be the person to confirm this.
>
> About the 7 day shelf life of fix. anytime you have a stock solution that
> you then dilute to a working solution you should mix the working solution
> just before you are going to use it. If you are going to develop a lot of
> film in a couple days then you can mix enough to get you through, hence the
> 7 day shelf life.
>
> BUTCH
>
> Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself.
>
> Hermann Hess (Damien)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:53:36 -0500
> From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!!
> (was:FAJlenses)
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>
>> Dave,
>> You ought to buy it now if you can. Bronica is offering a
>> $450 rebate until
>> March. That makes the RF645 and the 65mm normal lens cost
>> about $1150, which
>> is a screaming bargain.
>
> ARGH!
>
> tv
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:49:04 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: End of K-mount?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Mike Johnston said:
>
>> But where have you heard about Pentax introducing USM or IS lenses? From
>> what I've heard, both those technologies are closely controlled by Canon.
>> The only reason Nikon has them is that MITI forced Canon to share. Olympus,
>> for instance, had a big hit with the digital UZI, but could not make a
>> successor because Canon would not let it license the IS technology again. I
>> don?t have any inside track or any great knowledge of this, but personally I
>> doubt very much we'll see any Pentax lenses with either of these
>> technologies at any time in the foreseeable future.
>
> I thought the patent protected Canon for seven years, and it's expired
> now. Although I could be wrong or simply unsophisticated in the ways of
> patents.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:00:26 EST
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: OT:Ilford Chemical Confusion
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="part1_1a1.10a323d7.2b7c0fea_boundary"
>
> --part1_1a1.10a323d7.2b7c0fea_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> In a message dated 2/12/2003 2:17:02 PM Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Subject:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David... I've used kodak hardening fixer on HP5+ and I don't notice
>> any
>> difference between those negs and ones fixed without hardener. Test
>> the
>> hardener out on a small sample and see what happens.
>>
>>
>
> It may be in the Ilford data sheets, opr somewhere else, but I read that
> fixers with hardner should only be used when the solutions are very warm,
> like here in Houston in the sujmmer it is very hard to get cool enough
> solutions without a dedicated cooling bath. I guess it prevents the emulsion
> from slipping off of the backiing.
>
> Jerry in Houston
>
> --part1_1a1.10a323d7.2b7c0fea_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
> =3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 2/12/2003 2:17:02 PM Central Standa=
> rd Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
> : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000"=
> style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"A=
> rial" LANG=3D"0">Subject: <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> David... I've used kodak hardening fixer on HP5+ and I don't notice <BR>
> any<BR>
> difference between those negs and ones fixed without hardener. Test <BR>
> the<BR>
> hardener out on a small sample and see what happens.<BR>
> <BR>
> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3=
> FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>
> It may be in the Ilford data sheets, opr somewhere else, but I read that fix=
> ers with hardner should only be used when the solutions are very warm,
> like=20=
> here in Houston in the sujmmer it is very hard to get cool enough
> solutions=20=
> without a dedicated cooling bath. I guess it prevents the emulsion fro=
> m slipping off of the backiing.<BR>
> <BR>
> Jerry in Houston</FONT></HTML>
>
> --part1_1a1.10a323d7.2b7c0fea_boundary--
>
> --------------------------------
> End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 Issue #40
> ********************************************
